I'll continue from my last post, most of the planets you can colonize are inhabitable and have native populations, therefore, they would have their own developed infrastructure, including energy creation and distribution and agriculture when you first colonize. They would have their own cities and their own government, so why would you have build out the native population centers when there already developed?
Now I can understand the Underdevelopment Tax for the Vasari with them being an entirely different Race and all, the TEC and the Advent are physiologcally Human.
Physiology has absolutely nothing to do with development costs outside of the shape or the size of things, and you're over estimating the ability of native populations with no real financing or capital improvement funding backing them. If you look at the planets, there are NO cities on them until after you colonize. They may have some infrastructure and form of government for their little piece of the world, but there's nothing even remotely close to the global scale that you, the player, has to deal with. The manual also states that the Vasari enslave other races and generally rule from orbit, so in that sense, their faction has no development costs tied to their personal comforts.
Here's the thing, the Sins universe that we play in assumes that all planets have some native human populations since it's been thousands of years since mankind has reached out for the stars, and that a large part of humanity has the ability to pack up and move to a new planet just as easily as it is for you and I to pack up and move to a new home, maybe even easier... Now in game terms, this is my impression of what happens based on what I see in the game itself, and what I've read in the manual and other places:
(Initial Colonization)
When a new government comes in, you have to do things to appease the populace and get them to support you and get them to move to urban centers. If you look at a planet in the game, there are no cities. Once you colonize it, a few appear. In real life, having a city of 1 million people in a location that's only a few hundred square miles is much more profitable then having that same million people spread out over a million square miles. It's much easier and much more profitable to govern the City of New York then it is to govern the entire State of Virginia. Roughly the same amount of people, far smaller space. Build a lot of stuff close together and people don't have to go very far for anything. You spend less on building and maintaining power transmission lines, you spend less on building and maintaining water / sewer lines, you spend less on building and maintaining transportation networks. People tend to like not having to drive 30 miles to buy groceries. People tend to like having schools and fire stations and hospitals nearby. As the population of the planet climbs in the game, you see more urban centers appearing. The more you fund into building up, the more people you can entice to come and live on your planet. Failing to fund new urban centers means you waste money providing services to a much wider area. Providing medical services or fire protection or police protection, for example, costs a lot more in the countryside then it does in the city on a per capita basis. The reason? Distance. Plain and simple as that. Roads in the countryside have to stretch for miles sometimes just to link a few homesteads together. In the city, a few dozen feet of road does the same thing. It costs a hell of a lot more to maintain miles of road then it does a few dozen feet. There's your underdevelopment tax. You fail to fund and develop the urban centers, you pay to have to cover long distances for everything.
(Planet Bombardment)
This aspect effectively means you're bombing those urban centers and scattering the people across the globe and demoralizing them as much as possible. You're targeting the tallest buildings, the government facilities, important monuments, i.e. if you were to attack the US from space, you wouldn't shoot at the middle of Nebraska, you'd shoot at Washington DC and go after the head of the government, you'd bomb New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Dallas, Atlanta, etc. and get people to leave and spread out thus making them much harder to protect and control. You'd bomb Mount Rushmore, the Golden Gate Bridge, and Cape Canaveral and remove the things that make people proud to be who they are, and you keep on bombing until they've given up all hope that their current governors can protect and provide for them. In the game, as the population numbers drop, you'll see those urban centers start to disappear. Keep on bombing and you'll eventually destroy all of the large urban centers and emergency shelters.
(Re-Colonization)
As in the initial colonization phase, you're primary focus is rebuilding. Rebuilding new infrastructure, rebuilding new urban centers, rebuilding new governments, rebuilding new monuments... Just because someone did this before, doesn't mean it's going to be cheaper for you to redo it after you've blown it all up. If anything, it's typically more expensive because you have the added cost of cleaning up your mess before you can get started on rebuilding. So while you may not have to pay for new everything as the first colonizer did, you're footing the bill for cleaning up as well, or as the case may be, footing the bill for the added cost to the population for failing to clean up. As in the initial colonization phase, you're being taxed because the people are scattered and you have to pay to cover their needs over longer distances. Once you start funding those urban centers, more people move to them, reducing that distance cost. More people move to the planet and you get more tax money out of it.
(Failed Bombardment)
Granted, during bombardment, the population got scattered and some or all of their urban centers destroyed, but if you had spent the money on building emergency shelters to protect the populace from that bombardment, they can bounce back, rebuild, and repopulate urban centers quickly. While this process is going on, they still have places to live and go about their daily lives and your government still has a place to rule from. Your costs remain the same (meaning you're not being taxed) because you've thought ahead and planned for this eventuality. While the population is more scattered then if they were in large urban centers, their basic needs are still being provided for them collectively. So obviously, you're not collecting the taxes you normally would as the population rebuilds, but eventually, life returns to normal, those urban centers are rebuilt and repopulated, and you return to collecting your credits which the people should be happy to be paying because that's what's protecting their collective butts.
(Abandonment)
Oddly enough, there are times where ditching a planet is smarter then continually sinking money into it. If it's a frequent target, if it's just got too many ways to access forcing you to hold a portion of your fleet back for protection, if you want to give it to an ally... Those aren't the only reasons, but sometimes it's just better to walk away from it. While you're doing this, technically, you're cutting off access to the urban centers you've built up, letting them fall into disrepair, or general neglect. Whatever is actually happening, the safe thing to assume is you're yanking your government out. You're making your people bail on the population, and maybe once the government is gone, martial law takes effect and the planet's own little defense force scatters the population intentionally so that there's less chance for large groups to get together and riot or become a serious threat to safety. Maybe there isn't a planetary police force, and maybe the population does destroy everything in their lawless environment. It really doesn't matter what's actually happening because it's the next owner's problem to worry about. Because it's not your problem, there's no cost to you unless you decide you want to recolonize, then you have to start all over again.